A Hole in the Schedule: Time to Stop Digging it Deeper?
“These construction challenges could not have been anticipated”
On February 10th, the Board of Education heard a presentation on project management confidently pronouncing that the Long-Term Facilities Plan was proceeding “On schedule, on budget, and according to design specifications”. This was presented as justification that project management was effective, and therefore the District needed no additional Owner’s representation or management capabilities.
On February 24th, the Board was told that the Woodbury schedule was substantially behind, and the school is unlikely to open on schedule in the fall of 2027. So what happened in two weeks?
Structure: Surprises were encountered in the connecting elements at either end of the building that required a redesign of steel. In the telling of the District’s attorney, the original 1918 building had been supported by the now demolished 1931 wings.**
Whatever the cause, the claim is that this condition “couldn’t have been predicted”. This is a strange assertion, given that the building had been vacant since June of 2023 and could have easily been investigated by opening up walls and ceilings as needed at any time, a common practice in rehab projects.
The result? Foundations originally scheduled to begin on November 6th now aren’t expected to start until March 9th. From discussion at the January 13th meeting, it sounds like this issue has been known for some time.
Shale: This underground rock layer was found “a couple feet higher” than expected, impacting foundation design and earthwork requirements. The miss was explained by noting that the geotechnical assessment was conducted well before the school was designed, so soil borings weren’t taken at the same position as final foundation locations. In fact, only five borings appear to have been made, a very small number given the footprint of this 186,000 sq. foot project.
A Facilities Advisory Committee citizen member raised concerns about underground soil conditions on multiple occasions, suggesting that deeper and more numerous borings would help reduce risk once the final foundation configuration was known. This suggestion appears to have gone unheeded. Again, there was plenty of time for further investigation last year.
Weather: “The worst winter in thirty years” claimed the District’s attorney, apparently also a meteorologist. Work in the construction industry long enough, you’ll notice every project delay is blamed on the weather: too cold, too wet, too hot, etc. We live in Northeast Ohio. If a schedule relies on perfect weather, or even average weather in order to hit critical deadlines, it is based in magical thinking.
Were any of these sudden new surprises? No. But since they weren’t part of the presentation 14 days ago, one might conclude this is either a significant lack of transparency, or that the Administration is substantially disconnected in their understanding of the construction progress and process. Whichever the case, there will be cascading impacts. A $400,000 structural increase is already estimated, and other foundation cost increases are expected. Additionally, the Contractor’s “General Conditions” costs will add up with the delay, perhaps on the order of around $70,000 per month.
Other factors impacting the schedule were left unsaid
Approval hurdles: Touched on elsewhere on this site, the architect struggled to develop a design that could meet community design standards until another architect was engaged to bail out the design team.
Initial start date: the building sat vacant for some time before any design study started, with Ludlow as the focus instead. The design work for both projects could have been concurrent, missing an opportunity to get a head start that would provide more schedule breathing room.
Design team capacity: The decision to use the same firm for all projects has certain potential advantages if things go well, but to an outside observer it appears they have limited staff capacity – we have seen only a handful of individuals from GPD and RPMI.
Project Management: Again, we seem to be slow to learn lessons from Ludlow’s challenges. This project is significantly larger, and yet there’s no greater capacity added at the district. The project is months behind before foundations are even poured, but the Administration concluded two weeks ago that project management is effective. Second verse, same as the first.
Delays add time, but added time creates opportunities
While these challenges are unfortunate and costly, they are not without a silver lining. They present an opportunity to reset strategies that aren’t working, and time to improve quality control and community engagement. Some thoughts:
The District should immediately engage a third party to provide a quality review. The bulk of the drawings were just finalized last month, and still in the process of permit and bidder review. The time is ideal to engage a neutral party to look through the drawings and specifications. Catching mistakes now can pay dividends in saved time and money later.
Reset project management approach and capabilities. Hopefully these hiccups and those at Ludlow provide a wake-up call, it’s time to bring on additional expertise that can better steward community resources. It may also be time to re-evaluate the project team.
Expand engagement. Late last year, the Board President previously indicated that elementary school engagement would be limited because of the urgency of construction schedule. The Woodbury delay will push the elementary school renovations back by a corresponding amount of time. This is an opportunity to better engage the community and avoid rushing the designs unnecessarily.
Communicate: The gaps between the District’s messaging and the reality on the ground are becoming steadily more apparent. It’s worth working to regain community trust by committing to more transparency about the project.
** Some advice: don’t ask a structural engineer for legal guidance, or vice-versa.
Comments